Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
State Bank of India vs HDFC BANK on 15 October 2026
**DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI**
**Misc. Appeal No. 86/2026**
**Arising out of OA No. 461/2017 (DRT-III, Chandigarh)**
**Item No. 17**
**State Bank of India**
**V**
**HDFC Bank Limited & others**
**15.10.2026 Hon'ble Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain**
Present: Sh. Gaurav Singla, Advocate for appellant This matter is taken up through Hybrid hearing.
**I.A. No. 577/2026 (application for condonation of delay)**
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The instant application is filed for condonation of delay of 188 days in filing the present appeal due to the reasons stated in the application. After considering all facts, the delay of 188 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. The application is accordingly allowed.
**Misc. Appeal No. 86/2026**
2. The appellant filed the O.A. bearing no. 461/2017 titled as **State Bank of India V HDFC Bank Limited & others**. The appellant during the trial of O.A. bearing no. 461/2017 filed I.A. bearing no. 253/2024 for issuance of direction to the CBI i.e. respondent no. 3 in the present appeal for producing certain documents as detailed in Production-cum-Seizure Memo dated 26.06.2012 placed at page no. 64 of the appeal as Annexure A-2 for admission denial of the document. The Counsel for the appellant stated that the correct number of the IA is 253/2024. The DRT-III, Chandigarh vide impugned order dated 01.09.2025 has dismissed the I.A. bearing no. 253/2024. The order dated 01.09.2025 is reproduced as under:
**This application was filed by applicant for issuance of direction to CBI to produce original instruments/cheques which were seized on 26.06.2012.**
**Sh. Gaurav Singla, Advocate argues that those documents are required for producing before Registrar for admission or denial of documents.**
Reply to this IA was filed on behalf of defendant no. 1 & 2.
Sh. C. S. Pasricha, Advocate argued that this application is liable to be dismissed. It is the duty of the applicant to produce evidence on his own to prove his case.
Each party has to prove his own case. In the cases of civil nature, party has to produce his evidence. Courts/Tribunals are not required to collect evidence for any party.
In light of above facts and circumstances, this IA no. 253/2024 is dismissed.
3. Sh. Himanshu Bahuguna, Inspector CBI appeared on behalf of respondent no.3 Central Bureau of Investigation stated that the documents as detailed in Production-cum-Seizure Memo has already been submitted in the charge sheet after completion of investigation and the charge sheet is pending for consideration before the ACGM, Jaipur. It is further stated that at present the respondent no. 3 i.e. CBI is not in possession of the documents as per the Annexure A-2.
4. In view of the submissions made hereinabove, the present appeal stands disposed of with the liberty to the appellant to take appropriate legal proceeding for summoning the relevant record from the concerned court pertaining to the RC bearing no. 15/2012/CBI/EO-II/Delhi as per the rules and procedure within four weeks' during the trial of OA bearing no. 461/2017. The pending applications also stands disposed of.
----- (Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain) Chairperson
-P\$